Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Truss: Aviation Safety Regulation Review

Old 2nd Oct 2014, 12:22
  #1261 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Yosemite
Age: 49
Posts: 177
Thorny, perhaps the reason Sarcs and Kharon are angry is because the Witchdoctor has hexed them, placed a spell on them? I can see it now, Dr Voodoo and the A/g Director of Aviation Sentinel, wearing their slippers and giant robes and standing beside a giant boiling cauldron. In goes the following;
- 2 Cups of worm farm castings
- 4 potted plants
- A sprinkling of pony poo
- A Photograph of the Screaming Skull
- The entire Part 61 suite
- 15 Kg's of Coober Pedy runway gravel
Mix it all together, chant some secret ICAO code words while speaking in tongues and sprinkle a pinch of the magic dust in the direction of Can'tberra and hey presto - Sarcs, Kharon and the rest of the IOS are cursed.

*Disclaimer* - The above S.O.P, extracted from the CASA Ops manual, does not apply to FAA auditors, ICAO employees or the Ministers office.
Soteria is offline  
Old 2nd Oct 2014, 21:53
  #1262 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Naw – just amused irritation.

Sarcs, Thorny – not angry, foofle valve not challenged; McComic just don't signify enough to get me angry. It's more a matter of principal, never could abide to be bullied, just can't deal with those who tell fibs; and, I know it's wrong, but I cannot tolerate fools; not gladly at least. No, I just reckoned McComic's last words needed exposure to daylight, as they typify the regime and reflect the true nature of the man. As stated – a good riddance.
Sunny –"This reminds me of the pre reformation Catholic Church practice of issuing "Indulgences" allowing the faithful to sin for money, while the same sin was prohibited to the rest of us."
Spot on Sunny, much to remind us of that edifice from the McComic years, much indeed.

The interesting part is going to be watching estimates as the GWM boss Farq-u-hardson and his playmates try to explain away the chaos left behind. McComic may have set the tone and led the way, but you may rest assured that the blood will be on someone else's hands. If (IF) the rumoured inquiry into CASA gets underway, the GWM and it's legal team will be carrying not only their own burden of guilt, but that of their ring masters while trying to bury their own skeletons. Forced to defend themselves against not only a mountain of external evidence but against internal. Pay back is a bitch, but when driven by revenge and ambition the heat in the kitchen will surely rise to new levels.

Anyway – I, for one will watch with interest; hope they drag Truss in for a quiz session. It'll take two hours to explain to him that those funny little things flying over the sanatorium are not 'pretty birdies'; but aircraft and that he is responsible for them. Should be a hoot.

Toot toot.

PS – one of my favourite lines from a movie, when they bury a character, "God, we're sending you Curly; try not to piss him off"....

Last edited by Kharon; 2nd Oct 2014 at 22:45.
Kharon is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2014, 03:15
  #1263 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
"There's a storm front coming...White water running"

Noted that the RAAA conference is on next week & the hot topics for discussion...

From the Oz today: "THE appointment of a new board and head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the government’s response to the aviation regulatory review are among the hot items to be discussed next week when regional airlines hold their annual national convention in the NSW Hunter Valley. Speakers include foreign and international affairs expert Keith Suter, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin and regulatory review chief David Forsyth. Regional Aviation Association of Australia chief executive Paul Tyrrell said there would also be a focus on the expenses imposed on regional airlines by government."

Well no surprises there I guess but it will be interesting to hear the Reverend Forsyth's view on the current impasse with the miniscule & his Department...

It will also be fascinating whether the Air Chief gets a grilling on the latest LOSA investigation report put out (with the usual zero fanfare & obligatory 2 year lag) by the bureau yesterday: AO-2012-031

Also in keeping with the bureau BASR methodology the safety issues discovered in the course of the investigation can only now be viewed on the ATsB website... However two of these safety issues are listed as recommendations and are still outstanding i.e. yet to be adequately addressed.
Risk controls for manual processing of transponder code changes

The Australian Defence Air Traffic System (ADATS) did not automatically process all system messages generated by The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System. In cases where transponder code changes were not automatically processed, the risk controls in place were not able to effectively ensure that the changes were identified and manually processed.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-01Who it affects:All Darwin Approach Supervisor, Approach and Planner rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Adequately addressed

Controller scan of green radar returns

Darwin Approach controllers were routinely exposed to green (limited data block) radar returns that were generally inconsequential in that Approach control environment, leading to a high level of expectancy that such tracks were not relevant for aircraft separation purposes. Refresher training did not emphasise the importance of scanning the green radar returns.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-02Who it affects:All Darwin Approach Supervisor, Approach and Planner rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Not addressed

CADAS risk assessment and review proces

The Department of Defence’s risk assessment and review processes for the implementation of the Comsoft Aeronautical Data Access System and removal of the flight data position did not effectively identify or manage the risks associated with the resulting increased workload in the Darwin Approach environment, in particular with regard to the Planner position.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-03Who it affects:All Darwin Approach Supervisor, Approach and Planner rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Adequately addressed

Long-range display effectiveness

The Darwin Approach long-range display was a low resolution screen that presented air traffic control system information with reduced clarity and resulted in it having diminished effectiveness as a situation awareness tool.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-04Who it affects:All Darwin Approach rated Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Adequately addressed

Compromised separation recovery refresher training

The Department of Defence had not provided Darwin-based controllers with regular practical refresher training in identifying and responding to compromised separation scenarios.
Issue Number:AO-2012-131-SI-05Who it affects:All Darwin-based Joint Battlefield Airspace ControllersStatus:Not addressed
The release of this report also caught the attention of some media outlets...

Example from AA:ATSB says Defence yet to address all concerns after 2012 loss of separation incident
The Department of Defence said the Air Force was “committed to maintaining a safe air traffic control service in military airspace and believes that cooperation with civil safety agencies ensures a high level of transparency when conducting air safety investigations”.

“The [ATSB] report … detailed three safety issues that Defence has addressed to ATSB’s satisfaction ahead of the release of this report. Air Force will continue to work with the ATSB to address the report recommendations,” Defence said in a statement.

A previous ATSB report, released in October 2013, found a higher rate of loss of separation (LOS) incidents at airports where air traffic control was administered by military air traffic services (ATS).

“Military ATS were involved in a disproportionate number of loss of separation occurrences involving civilian aircraft in terminal area airspace relative to the amount of traffic they control,” that ATSB report said.
“Military ATS are responsible for about 25 per cent of the aircraft movements in terminal areas, but were involved in 36 per cent of LOS occurrences in terminal areas.”

Defence in its October 2 statement pointed out that: “Air Force and civil air traffic controllers have common qualifications and apply the same standards and procedures.”
After reading this report I found the in bold statement quite disturbing..

As per SOP Ben was first onto this story and also as per SOP he doesn't hold back...{particular highlights are in bold}:
Darwin ATC deletes vital message unread, imperils Qantas jets

Defence air traffic control at Darwin is arguably a greater risk to aviation than home grown terrorists

On 2 October 2012 near Darwin airport military air traffic controllers screwed up the safe separation of an arriving Qantaslink 717 and a departing Qantas 737 with a combined passenger capacity of about 283 seats because of a case of mistaken identity involving an RAAF C-130 which wasn’t even flying near the airport.

The C-130’s transponder code had also been inadvertently applied to the 717 flight by the civilian air traffic control system, but had been changed to a new code before it entered Darwin’s approach and departure airspace under defence control.

Except that Darwin military control had deleted the change message unread, leaving the officers handling the arrival in a state of momentary confusion as to who was doing what when suddenly nothing they were hearing or seeing at their desk matched their assumptions or expectations.

In its summary of this report the ATSB describes this inexplicable unprofessionalism or stupidity as “local contextual factors and confirmation bias”. The ATSB must think the Minister is an idiot. (See page 10 of the full report and ask yourself, if Darwin control can’t even be bothered to read AirServices messages how bleeding dangerous are these fools).

The labels in this ATSB image and related text prove it has a sense of the ridiculous

{Ps Hmm....not sure but that pic could have been taken in my garden shed...}

The ATSB final report into this incident is highly technical and would probably put lay readers into a coma. Use the download button for the full report, don’t rely on the summary.

It needs one of those gripping YouTube videos favoured by America’s safety investigator the NTSB to explain with moving pictures the unsafe elements of this particular incident and highlight the unsatisfactory state of affairs in which our military controllers are entrusted with the lives of hundreds of airline passengers where defence flights cross paths with passenger jets .

While the incoming 717 crossed directly above the outgoing 737 with 900 feet to spare, infringing the safe separation distance by ‘only’ 100 feet, it is the stuff up in Darwin control that is of concern.

There has never been an incident exactly like this one, according to the ATSB report, but there is a long history of military incompetency in handling civilian aircraft movements in defence controlled airspace particularly at the shared facilities at Darwin and Newcastle airports.

And nothing, apart from the issuing of anodyne media releases by successive transport ministers, has even been done about this.

There seems to a death wish of disastrous proportions in the Department of Defence in that it continues to assert its professionalism and competency in handling passenger jets, and resist all efforts to allow civilian controllers to control civilian jets at these airports, until one day there is a terrible tragedy, because bugger all has even been done to fix the problem.

It is astonishing to read in this report that the Australian Defence Air Traffic System and the much larger civilian system have “only limited communication between them.”

The ATSB also expresses dissatisfaction with some of the responses it received from Defence.

The ATSB is not satisfied that the DoD has adequately addressed the safety issues regarding the provision of refresher training to air traffic controllers for the scanning of green radar returns and in compromised separation recovery requirements and techniques. As a result, the ATSB has made formal recommendations to the DoD to take further safety action on these issues.

Going on past performances, Defence will continue to ignore the ATSB in that nothing material will be done to end the risk that the actions of its controllers pose to the life and limb of civilian airliner passengers, and will resist as fiercely as it has in the past any suggestion that its controllers cease to exercise any control over civil movements.

However the chairmanship of AirServices Australia has passed to Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston (Retired) while its CEO is Margaret Staib, who also has a distinguished previous career in defence.

It may well be that they will recognise that this situation at shared military/civil airports in manifestly dangerous and untenable, and take decisive action to eliminate these risks.
And in case you were wondering which Miniscule the ATsB thinks is an IDIOT here is the text from a promo tweep from Ben...

"...Lastest Oz ATC stuff up with two QF jets shows ATSB thinks Minister Truss is an idiot.."

To be fair to the bureau they would not be alone in their alleged assessment of the miniscule...

TICK..TOCK miniscule I don't believe, on past form, that Senator X (at least) will leave this one alone at the upcoming Senate Estimates..

Sarcs is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2014, 03:26
  #1264 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 359
CASA rejects complaints about new licensing rules.

CASA rejects complaints about new licensing rules.

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority says it is conducting a comprehensive information and education campaign to get people up to speed on controversial new pilot licensing rules.

Operators of smaller aviation concerns have complained about confusion over the new rules, describing them as hard to comprehend, not backed by education, and contradictory in places.

Industry sectors such as flight training, helicopter operations and aerial agriculture lobbied hard to get the September 1 introduction of the Civil Aviation Regulation Part 61 changes delayed because they did not believe either side was adequately prepared.

But CASA, which had issued 570 Part 61 licences by Tuesday, rejected the claims.

“There is a wealth of information on the CASA website for pilots, flying instructors and flying training organisations,” a CASA spokesman said. “We are progressively updating and refining this information based on feedback from the aviation community and the questions being asked.’’

The spokesman said there were currently 19 plain-English information sheets available covering topics ranging from student pilots through to flight reviews and proficiency checks, with three more about to be released. These were short and easy to follow, covering the central elements of the new licensing suite.

A series of AvSafety seminars focusing on the new rules had been running since July, with 22 already conducted and 20 more planned.

The authority also did not believe the new regulations contained contradictions. “However, we are always open to feedback and suggestions from people in the aviation community,’’ the spokesman said. “If there are indeed issues relating to the new regulations that can be usefully addressed, we will do so. CASA encourages anyone with comments or suggestions about the new licensing suite to bring them to our attention.’’

The spokesman also disputed the claims that the new rules were costing more and said CASA was not charging people to make the transition. He said pilots who held a licence before September 1 were issued a new Part 61 licence at no cost when they notified CASA of a flight review or proficiency check, or they gained a rating or endorsement.

There had been lengthy and detailed consultations with the aviation community during the development of the new licensing suite over a number of years and there was an extended transition period of four years for pilots and three years for training organisations.

“The new regulations bring in significant improvements for the flying training sector such as the abolition of the student pilot licence, the inclusion of the recreational pilot licence and the wider use of the aircraft class rating system,’’ he said.

“It introduces greater flexibility, more options and a common structure for all pilot training. Under the previous regulatory arrangements there were many different and sometimes inconsistent arrangements covering training which are now streamlined and standardised.

“This makes the rules easier to understand and provides for better safety outcomes.”

The Australian Newspaper - Fri 3 Oct '14.
robsrich is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2014, 11:19
  #1265 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,454
thorn bird is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2014, 11:52
  #1266 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,016
When the following questions are answered we might (?) be a bit wiser...

In regard to Part 61
1) where is the cost benefit analysis ? (seems there are lots of costs...for what?)
2) what are the real safety benefits? (over previous regs)
3) how does it comply with Government policy on reducing red tape?

That will do for now!!
triadic is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2014, 20:24
  #1267 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
McComic legacy of lunacy – Part 1 of 61.

It requires no more than 3 clicks of the mouse key to Google CAA NZ – click Rules – click part 61 – click Download. Your NZ Part 61 will turn up, good to go in less than one minute. Spend 30 minutes, cherry pick a topic or two over a coffee and the difference becomes immediately apparent. – HERE - (lazy buggers).

Try and do that with the grotesque Australian parody of part 61.

The clearly drafted NZ regulation does not require an 800 odd page Manual of Standards to support an 800 page regulation. The NZ version is not larded with CASA "may" or "satisfied"; the personal opinion of whoever makes the CAA decision does not matter, a thing is legal or it is not. The options built into the Australian version leave the rule set wide open to subjective opinion and prosecution. Not to mention corruption.

The obsessive compulsion to micro manage, the overarching arrogance which ensures that some half wit FOI becomes 'god' in concert with a maniacal devotion to never being beaten on a point of law have given us the travesty which is 61.

Then you must add the CASA brainwashing of 'flight test examiners'. These come in two flavours, courtesy of the rule set. The pedantic, who will fail you because 'policy' is to reduce speed to V2 after an EFATO; and the 'Subterranean' who will be practical and not only allow command prerogative to be exercised, but encourage it; just can't let it be 'seen'.

The Kiwi mindset is streets ahead with half the worlds NAA chasing to catch up, ever wondered why?. You will note that Australia is not in the race toward clarity, but ambling off toward evermore massive, overbearing rule sets which have been acknowledged and demonstrated by the sane world, as detrimental to safety. Not to mention the massive cost burden and much more red tape.

The truly nauseating party piece in yesterdays 'Australian' (CASA propaganda rag) spells it all out; more regulation equals more safety, while robustly maintaining that industry is just too thick to get it. Oh, we get it all right. Right in the ass – again.

We must hope now that the new DAS is an ex FAA director; one look at 61 and it'll be in the skip. What a great way to start a new era, if Truss ever gets around to announcing the board that is, just so we get an inkling of the way things are going to be.

Toot toot.

Oh, Anyone seen Farq-u-hardson about the place lately?, not gone to sleep on train again has he. Who knows, maybe he's doing his homework for estimates. No doubt the Senate crew have been doing theirs.

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Oct 2014 at 21:29. Reason: Bit spoiled for choice yesterday Sarcs - nicely done..
Kharon is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2014, 22:33
  #1268 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
ASSR submission.

I have managed to persuade the PAIN associates to release part of an unedited 'Draft' version of their submission made to the ASRR. The final edited version was completed from the draft version released – HERE - with various supportive attachments and two 'confidential' supplementary submissions. There is no parliamentary privilege covering the final version, however, detailed submissions by associates were considered sensitive.

I believe the ASRR has been emasculated, this notion supported by the lack of meaningful response to Forsyth and there being no publication of industry response to the ASRR report. I hoped that offering the draft submission to those interested, may rekindle industry determination to demand that the recommendations made by the Senate and the Forsyth review be implemented and fully supported by the Abbott government, as a matter of urgency.

I had to do some plain and fancy talking to get this document released, the slave time due will be willingly provided along with the midnight oil, ink, quills and parchment.

P7 a.k.a. TOM expects me to remind those downloading the document to only click once on the - -.

Thanks guys.

P9 a.k.a K9

Last edited by Kharon; 3rd Oct 2014 at 22:43. Reason: No toot toot - decorum expected as part of deal - don't ask.
Kharon is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2014, 01:00
  #1269 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Rumor has it Terry was seen in Montreal at Isabelle's Fashion House getting quotes for an Elephant Tutu. It was alleged he was unsteady on his feet as he demonstrated a pirouette.

Last edited by Frank Arouet; 4th Oct 2014 at 02:26. Reason: PG remains unmedicated.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 4th Oct 2014, 02:16
  #1270 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,454
"In regard to Part 61
1) where is the cost benefit analysis ? (seems there are lots of costs...for what?)
2) what are the real safety benefits? (over previous regs)
3) how does it comply with Government policy on reducing red tape?"

In Answer:
1) for what?...Zilch!
2) None
3) It doesn't

"Oh, Anyone seen Farq-u-hardson about the place lately?"

Unless he's dozed off in the John again it could be he's in retreat with CAsA legal.

A rumour is getting about of a boys in blue investigation underway, allegedly of corruption in Wodgers Warren, hope its not another kiddie fiddler.

Kharon the PAIN submission is well worth a read, thanks for organizing that. Put together with many of the others such as the RAA, hellio and AG boys, it paints a picure and it aint the one the Bullsh.t in Fridays Australian attempted to paint.

Last edited by thorn bird; 4th Oct 2014 at 02:18. Reason: Ironing a few more brown paper bags, if the rumours are true may need a few more
thorn bird is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2014, 06:01
  #1271 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Willyleaks – Dinosaurs confirmed extinct.

The future of commercial air transport safety regulation and oversight should be based on carrier operational performance, not on documentary compliance with regulatory minutiae. according to lATA's regional director safety and operations for Europe, Giancarlo Buono.

Speaking at the 16-17 September Flightglobal Flight Safety 2014 conference at London Heathrow, Buono said: "It's the outcome that matters. The means of achieving a good safety performance is a matter of risk assessment usingng a safety management system."

He predicts the days of a "Tom and Jerry" relationship between regulator and regulated airlines will be consigned to history, and a system built on co-operation and performance will replace the old "cornpliar1ce-based" oversight system based on minimum legal standards.

Speaking at the same conference, the performance-based regulation manager at the lJK Civil Aviation Authority, John Clark, says the CAA began changing its safety oversight system from a compliance-based system to one based on measurable safety performance in April this year, and the evolution to U1e new system will be complete by April 2016. This transformation, Clark says, is not necessary only because it will produce better safety performance at airline level, but because national aviation authorities will face a resources crisis, and regulator/ airline co-operation is the only way to meet regulatory needs in a growing industry.

Buono confirms th at both the US Federal Aviation Administration and Europe's EASA are committed to moving to performance-based regulation, hacked by lCAO.

Courtesy - Flight Global – Safety – David Learmount.
25 years, AUD $230,000,000 all for naught; I'd call that a national embarrassment. Yet our home grown Frankenstein designers robustly maintain – it's all our fault and we are all just too dense to 'get' Parts 145 or 61.

Kharon is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2014, 07:11
  #1272 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,454
"25 years, AUD $230,000,000 all for naught;"

An Embarrassment?? I'd call it Corrupt misuse of public money

"This transformation, Clark says, is not necessary only because it will produce better safety performance at airline level, but because national aviation authorities will face a resources crisis, and regulator/ airline co-operation is the only way to meet regulatory needs in a growing industry."

It could be said that CAsA are already scraping the bottom of the gene pool finding anyone competent to fill positions in regulatory oversight.

Plenty of lawyers out there, but anyone with knowledge and experience in operations or maintenance are getting hard to find even for the industry.

I cant remember where I saw it but I think I read somewhere that the average age of LAME's was now in the fifties.

CAsA harassment and bullying is a massive impediment to anyone half way competent accepting a CP or Check and training role.

Both are poisoned challises with the very real threat of finishing your career as a "Not a Fit and Proper Person" with a felony conviction which puts paid to ever escaping from the madhouse aviation has become in Australia.

CAsA is already finding it difficult to recruit and as the industry dies, even harder. The inordinate length of time it takes them to approve anything is an impediment to investment, along with the capital risk, when the whole business can be pulled out from under you on the whim of a Wabbit, or FOI.

The regulations as they are, are an invitation to corruption. How long before their standard excuse, "We are sorry for the delay, we do not have the resources available at the moment to process your application" is followed by...." however for a small incentive I may be able to move you to the head of the queue."

If it isn't already happening.

Last edited by thorn bird; 5th Oct 2014 at 07:22. Reason: Finding more brown paper bags
thorn bird is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2014, 20:53
  #1273 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
Thornbird, you don't give "incentives" that would be illegal. You give "presents". I don't believe I've ever smelt a whiff of corruption involving money, but the AAT is littered with examples of personal vendettas pursued by CASA.

Bad and imprecise legislation and regulation is an open invitation to corruption. In particular the use of the weasel words and phrases beloved by CASA are extremely dangerous.

For example the fact that CASA never "approves" a lot of things, it merely "accepts" them....or not. Then there is the "fit and proper person" test and of course those weasel words "acceptable" and "appropriate".

Fit and proper, acceptable and appropriate to whom? When? CASA declares it has the right to make subjective decisions which are the very anti thesis of the Weberian principles of public administration and the Government has totally abrogated their role to keep these clowns in line.

My guess now is that the Governments non response to the review will be released between Christmas and New Year together with the announcement that Mr. Farqueson is no longer the acting but now permanent Director Of Air Safety, to the general grief of what’s left of Australian Aviation.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2014, 22:21
  #1274 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Strange tales:

Sunny – "I don't believe I've ever smelt a whiff of corruption involving money,". etc.
I had to dig back five years into the BK chronicles to find any reference to 'money' changing hands; the story was purported to be 'dinkum', with photographs, documents etc. and touted to be a big 'Hoo-Haa'. But it never amounted to anything, partly because the flying school went belly up, partly because it involved overseas students and partly because the case was never driven to conclusion; but it's the only one ever broke the surface.
[but] the AAT is littered with examples of personal vendettas pursued by CASA.
Again hard to make a call of honest fiscal corruption; but moral and legal corruption rule supreme. For example, the protected species, the 'pet' chief pilot, the willing accomplice and the true evil – the unsubstantiated 'hearsay' transmogrified into 'facts and circumstances' all benefit from and thrive under the umbrella provided by the 'regulator'. The tales are many, legend and provable; the unfortunate part is that they land in the AAT, which "stands in the shoes of the regulator". There is tribe of unfortunates who tread the dimly lit pathways to the FoIA, to ICC, to Ombudsman, to politicians, to media, to medical experts, to lawyers, to defective administration, to coroner: all in vain.

We see a few examples briefly aired on PPRuNe, but if real regulatory reform is to be achieved, this bloody awful administration must be brought to heel. No matter how good the rule set – without a regulator who is absolutely above suspicion, we will simply continue in the same vane, with new rules,

This new FAA reject – soon to be DAS better bring body armour and a SWAT team; the other side will. They are the home team with years of practice at covering the pug marks leading up to the kill, have all the local support and an entrenched system of protection which reaches into the deepest, darkest portals of the 'Crat Mutual Protection Society'. The Murky Machiavellian club is only the first layer of opposition, after that, even if you beat it, the senior league will grind any real reformer into the cold, arid desert of 25 years and counting.

Clean out the top three layers, encourage the 'white hats' and grab a big stick, like the Senate committee to provide top cover, the Bored to cover your arse and the CDPP to prosecute the known offenders; then maybe things will change. A new minuscule would be a great first step; can't see the new DAS pitching up to Abbott's office asking for a new minuscule somehow and getting it; can you??

Aye well – the BBQ needs a clean and Minnie is in spring cleaning mode. Best crack on.

Toot toot..
Kharon is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2014, 22:49
  #1275 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606

Corruption: n 1. The act of corrupting or state of being corrupt. 2. moral perversion; depravity. 3. dishonesty, esp bribery 4. putrefaction or decay. 5. alteration, as of a manuscript. 6. an altered form of a word. Corruptible adj susceptible to corruption; capable of being corrupted.
Corrupt. 1. lacking in integrity; open to or involving bribery or other dishonest practices. 2 morally depraved. 3. putrid or rotten. 4. contaminated; unclean. 5. made meaningless or different in meaning from the original by scribal errors or alterations. 6. containing errors. 7. to become or cause to become dishonest or disloyal. 8. to debase or become debased morally; deprave. 9. infect or contaminate; taint. 10. to cause to become rotten.

No, nothing seems to have changed. Perhaps there is a legal interpretation of the word corrupt. There is obviously a CAsA definition which would be a corruption of the original.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2014, 23:01
  #1276 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Angry PBR v Big "R": AMROBA - "We are out of step globally".

Kharon - 25 years, AUD $230,000,000 all for naught; I'd call that a national embarrassment. Yet our home grown Frankenstein designers robustly maintain – it's all our fault and we are all just too dense to 'get' Parts 145 or 61.
Global embarrassment more like it...

From AMROBA latest newsletter - Volume 11, Issue 10
October — 2014
Global/State Aviation Safety

Regulation alone cannot improve the safety record.
The most important role of the law of aviation is to provide
a framework that keeps the aviation industry safe, fair, and

Aviation safety is a term encompassing the theory, investigation,
and categorisation of flight failures, and the prevention
of such failures through regulation, education, and
training. It can also be applied in the context of campaigns
that inform the public as to the safety of air travel.

Though often viewed as a simple entity (the safety record,
as it is called), safety is an extremely complex matter. It
depends upon a dedicated and talented workforce.

ICAO Annex 19 comprises Standards and Recommended
Practices (SARPs) related to the implementation of State
safety programmes (SSP) and safety management systems
(SMS), including provisions for the collection, analysis,
protection and exchange of safety information. These requirements
are essential to the successful evolution of a
proactive safety strategy.

The underlined paragraph is the basis why the ASRR report
recommended the philosophies of CASA needs to
change and so does the aviation law to enable the new
approach highlighted within Annex 19.

Maintenance personnel employed by airlines and aircraft
maintenance organisations are required to perform their
jobs in a manner that will result in a safe aircraft.

After approval for return to service the pilots, and other
flight crew members, are then expected to perform their
duties with the ultimate goal of a safe journey for passengers.
Implementation of aviation safety requirements worldwide
are varied. UN Regions: North America 93%; Europe 74%;
Asia 69%; Latin America & Caribbean 67%; Oceania 48%
& Africa 44%.

These are ICAO 2013 published figures.

Australia, like so many other countries, has an implementation
record above the global average of 61 per cent.

Australia has 5 government agencies involved in cooperation
programs in the Asia Pacific region, in particular with
Indonesia and PNG. Department of Infrastructure, CASA,
ATSB, ASA & AMSA cooperation and enhancement programs
include training, mentoring, and capability building
activities assisting the Pacific Aviation Safety Office.

ICAO will continue to progress safety-related projects
such as harmonization and recognition of approved
maintenance organizations, States’ responsibilities
when a type certificate is suspended or revoked, and security
sensitive airworthiness directives.

How can Australia participate in the Asia Pacific Region
providing assistance when it continues to develop uniquely
Australian aviation law? We are not harmonised.

Australia’s unique aviation legislative maintenance requirements
are not compatible with EASRs or FARs. No
matter where you look, we are out of step globally.
Down'unda once dubbed the 'lucky country', now we're in danger of sliding off the bottom of the map into oblivion and 3rd world mediocrity, example from AIG - National CEO Survey...
The regulatory burdens faced by Australian businesses are high relative to those faced in other countries and
this relative position has worsened in recent years and has been a major factor in the deterioration of our
overall competitiveness ranking (Table 1).

This deterioration makes it more difficult for Australian businesses to compete globally, but it also adds to our
growing international reputation as a high cost country in which to do business and detracts from Australia’s
attractiveness as a destination for business investment and collaboration.
However while we continue to have a dinosaur of a miniscule that is asleep at the wheel and seemingly cannot (or will not) accept that he is being ill advised by his agencies & dept...well?? Basically put we're all stuffed!
Sarcs is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 21:08
  #1277 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Industry ? – what industry.

However while we continue to have a dinosaur of a miniscule that is asleep at the wheel and seemingly cannot (or will not) accept that he is being ill advised by his agencies & dept...well?? Basically put we're all stuffed!
The hard working ministers, who are grappling not only with the burden of red and green tape, a bureaucratic system which not only runs the country but self protects, a mountain of bad and outdated law, strive to help the public; must be going nuts about this sluggard Truss. Bit like playing for a crack team with the bosses nephew, 'Butterfingers' behind the wicket, working for the bookie.

Perhaps it's time we stepped around the road block, appealed to the Prime minister, Barnaby Joyce and any of the hard working 'kosher' senators; any of those with enough juice to 'goose the goose'.

Asleep at the wheel be damned – check his pulse....
Kharon is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2014, 22:08
  #1278 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 359
Australian helicopter growth slows suddenly

The Australian Helicopter Industry Association has always proudly stated that over past decades the Civic Aviation Safety Authority's Aircraft Register has grown by 6 to 8% each year. (Or at least twice the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, and three to four times faster than General Aviation aeroplane fleet listing).

FISCAL 2013/2014 (1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014) showed an increase from 1,951 to 2104 helicopters, up by 153 registrations. This was an increase of 7.8% to 30 Jun ’14, which was a good result.

As an aside Australia has the second largest helicopter fleet in the Western World; so any fleet variations are questioned closely.

However, AHIA is concerned at the slump of growth during First Quarter of the current FISCAL Year. (July to September). Our fleet only increased from 2104 to 2110, or 6. This represents an annual growth rate of only 1.14%.


AHIA is conducting an investigation on behalf of their members and will provide a report ASAP. Some clues are that some major flying schools appear to have very low numbers at present, no doubt due to the need to sort out troublesome new CASR Part 61 Flight Crew Training requirements and associated costs which are hard to calculate due to changes flowing from the CASA/Industry working groups finding problems that need “exemptions”; some of these may incur extra costs during the transition period.

And as an aside, a major LAME training facility went into liquidation – and we need more technical people due to our ageing engineers and few trainees!

The AHIA study will be published in the next edition of Helicopters Australasia – a free e-newsletter – see AHIA website.

Putting aside the potential error of making too much of short-term data variations; the sudden change is unusual and we are watching with great interest.

As you can see below we are working with other government agencies that have to translate and implement the new CASRs into their language (or legal speak). In particular, schools providing courses for international students have to comply with CASA rules and Skills Council protocols in order to obtain approval to accept student visas or similar.

Rob Rich
AHIA Regulatory Review Coordinator for
Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Transport and Logistics Industry Skills Council (Aircrew) and manufacturing Skills Australia (Maintenance technicians)
E: [email protected]
robsrich is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 09:41
  #1279 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,053
Did you know – the 'Truss' thread has averaged 16,800 reads per 28 days. Just saying.

Did you know the Senate thread in this embuggered iteration has averaged a touch over 18,000 reads per month. Just saying.

My rough numbers – but even a thicky could or should see that they are 'significant'; that's Uhmm what? – 35, 000 reads per 28 days give or take.

Well done IOS – Choccy frogs all around. Senate questions on notice next? – Wotchasay??

Toot Toot

Last edited by Kharon; 7th Oct 2014 at 09:44. Reason: Although what it all has to do with – I could not say.
Kharon is offline  
Old 7th Oct 2014, 12:01
  #1280 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Go west young man
Posts: 1,733
Miniscule Wuss, Smithy & the ASA sleeping elephant??

"K" - Senate questions on notice next? – Wotchasay??
Happy to oblige...

From FF AQONs on ASA safety issues continuing to be obfuscated i.e. smoke'n'mirrored...:
Question no.: 270
Program: n/a
Division/Agency: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Topic: Loss of Separation Assurance Incident
Proof Hansard Page: Written
Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:
CASA would be aware of a report released in late February by the ATSB regarding a loss of separation assurance incident in March 2012, involving two Garuda Airbus A330s. The ATSB was very critical of Airservices’ response to the safety issues in the report, and obviously this follows CASA’s audit of Airservices.

1. What actions is CASA currently involved in to improve the procedures within Airservices?

2. When can we expect to see a reduction in loss of separation incidents as a result of such improvements and better oversight?

3. Is CASA also working with Airservices in relation to their oversight of the provision of weather advice, with particular reference to the Mildura incident in 2013?

4. CASA would also be aware that the ATSB has just released a report into fume and smoke incidents in Australian aircraft. What steps will CASA be taking to respond to this report?


1. CASA continues with ongoing surveillance of Airservices using a risk based software surveillance tool and regular reviews of air traffic service related incident data in order to streamline and best focus its operational surveillance activities.This includes, as necessary, a sampling of Airservices’ contingency and business continuity plans.CASA also holds regular meetings with Airservices to review and enhance existing air traffic procedures as well as to introduce new procedures where appropriate. { Err...BOLLOCKS}

2. CASA will maintain effective oversight of Airservices, identifying issues requiring attention and action, and taking such further steps as may be necessary to ensure those issues are effectively addressed. {Again absolute BOLLOCKS}

3. CASA is providing information to the ATSB investigation of the Mildura incident. In addition, both CASA and Airservices are participating in the development of a Bureau of Meteorology Aviation Weather Strategic Plan.

4. The report was a joint research project undertaken by CASA and the ATSB as members of the Joint Agency Aviation Safety Analysis Coordination Group (JAASACG). There is no requirement to formally respond to the report; however CASA has undertaken to act on the relevant recommendations.
Along the same lines (i.e. ASA & by default CAsA addressing safety issues..) I noticed the following Exclusive article from the MMSM stable the Oz...: Act on radar safety or I’ll sue: Dick Smith warns CASA

However I do wonder if the MMSM article is only a knee jerk, regurgitated & selectively edited version of the following from the UK independently owned Daily Mail...
'Eventually there will be an accident': Aviator Dick Smith says pilots are 'flying blind' at regional airports as safety recommendations are ignored

  • Entrepreneur Dick Smith says 2004 ministerial safety directive which said radars should be installed at 10 regional airports has been ignored
  • The former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority claims profit is being put before safety
  • Implementing radar services at the regional airports would cost tens of millions of dollars
  • Airports without radars include Alice Springs and Coffs Harbour
  • 'It's obvious that if you don't install it that eventually you will have an accident,' Mr Smith said
By Sarah Dean for Daily Mail Australia
Published: 14:27 AEST, 6 October 2014 | Updated: 17:17 AEST, 6 October 2014

Thousands of planes are 'flying blind without radar' when they land at regional airports because Airservices Australia has refused to comply with safety instructions, aviator and entrepreneur Dick Smith has warned.

The millionaire and former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority claimed that lives are being put at risk because the AA has been 'completely irresponsible' in not implementing a 2004 ministerial safety directive relating to radar at 10 airports.

Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Maroochydore, Rockhampton and Tamworth airports currently do not use radar for incoming flights.

'They have to obey the ministerial directive and they have not obeyed it purely so they can make more profits,' Mr Smith told Daily Mail Australia.

Former chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority Dick Smith said profits are being put before safety at regional airports across Australia

In 2004 a ministerial safety directive told CASA to implement radar systems for air traffic controllers at 10 regional airports but ten years later these airports still do not have radar

He warned the AA board members that not implementing radar technology means 'they will be personally liable and they will lose their houses' if an accident occurs.

The implementation was supposed to have taken one year but has still not been carried out after 10 years.

Mr Smith said that although there have not been any accidents because of a lack of radar so far, it is only a matter of time.

'It hasn't caused a crash yet but you don't have a ministerial safety directive that requires something to be implemented for no reason.

Eventually there will be an accident... it's obvious that if you don't install it that eventually you will have an accident.'

He explained that the category of air space that the airports use 'requires radar to operate properly'.

Alice Springs is one of the regional airports that was advised to install radar technology in 2004

Hamilton Island airport, where thousands of tourists fly into every year, was also told to get radar

'It means if you are flying an aircraft it's on the radar screen. But at the moment they are flying blind without radar. Air traffic control have to call them up and work out where they are and they say "20 miles" away,' Mr Smith said.


According to 2010 data from The Civil Aviation Authority thousands of planes fly out of the 10 regional airports every year:
  • Albury has 180 RPT flights a week
  • Alice Springs has 128 RPT flights per week
  • Coffs Harbour has 144 RPT flights a week in
  • Hamilton Island has over 3,800 RPT flights a year
  • Hobart has 14,285 RPT flights a year
  • Launceston has 11,812 RPT flights a year.
  • Mackay has 11,000 RPT flights a year
  • Sunshine Coast/Maroochydore has 6,263 RPT flights a year
  • Rockhampton has 11,500 RPT flights a year
  • Tamworth has 2,911 RPT flights a year
Implementing radar services at the regional airports would cost tens of millions of dollars and Mr Smith believes this is the reason why the safety directive has been ignored.

'They have worked out that if they don't put the radar in and if they force the industry to put black boxes in instead they would make higher profits.'
Responding to legal advice issued by Mr Smith to Airservices Australia in relation to the radars, AA chairman Air Chief Marshal Houston, told the The Australian: 'Airservices has continued to progress technological and operational changes to enhance the safety of our services in regional Australia.

'There are now advanced technologies which in the near *future will, to a large extent, replace radar surveillance.'

However, Mr Smith refuted Mr Houston's claims that the airports are using new safety technology instead of radars.

'Their answer is modern technology will save money but it hasn't come in to use yet. They are putting profit in front of safety,' he said.

In a 2010 report that reassessed the ministerial advice, The Civil Aviation Authority noted: 'Radar is no longer the only technology available to provide surveillance to ATC. The introduction of satellite systems, air-to-ground data links and the emergence of new techniques provide surveillance coverage to ATC and will eventually replace the use of radar systems.

'Radar is considered to be old technology and is expensive to install and maintain when compared to newer technologies.'

The report also noted the high cost of installing radar technology and admitted that: 'The level of radar coverage surrounding the 10 Regional Aerodromes has not changed since the Ministerial Direction was given in 2004 although the TASWAM network has improved coverage in Tasmania.'

In 2010, there were 6,263 RPT flights a year from the Sunshine Coast Airport
No matter how bizarre and improbable you may consider Dick's rant in this article there is no denying that he does get the MSM coverage; & in this case from a UK news outlet that has online followers of over 3 million people...

Bravo Dick...
Sarcs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.